Category: Econut O’ The Day

Al Gore Melts Down Over an “Inconvenient Truth” in X-Rant about UN Climate Summit Failure
The real “inconvenient truth”: The Iron Law of Electricity >>> Climate Crisis Narrative

I have been following the climate cult antics at the United Nations climate meeting in Dubai [Conference of Parties (CoP28)].

Even before the meeting began, I predicted it would be the biggest failure yet. I was wrong.

The staggering level of failure was beyond my ability to imagine, and I can imagine quite a bit. However, I did not count on pushback from the meat industry. And I didn’t foresee that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) would mount such a sweeping and effective counter-offensive from beginning to end of the meeting.

I noted that climate cultists John Kerry and Al Gore were attending in a desperate bid for relevance. As the conference wound down, Gore melted down in an X-rant about the upcoming failure of the summit to phase out fossil fuels.

It was glorious.


A rant like this deserves a good fisking, so I shall now fisk.

Continue reading “”

True cost of charging an EV is equivalent to paying $17.33 a gallon of gas, per new report

In October, I wrote an essay on a “bombshell report” from a Texas think tank “which revealed that the actual cost of rechargeable cars and the E.V. industry is, in reality, much higher than they’re leading us to believe.”

The report is around 20-pages long, so I was only able to cover one of the explosive revelations—the average battery-powered car (E.V.) would cost “approximately $48,698 more to own over a 10-year period” were it not for the “staggering” handouts from the taxpayer via an extortionary and feckless government—but there were more.

Now, not only were the energy experts able to quantify the additional cost over time, but they were also able to put a dollar amount on the real cost of charging the vehicle, translated into price per gallon of gasoline. As you might guess, the price is astronomical, but that’s not the end of it; from an item published by the New York Post:

While EV advocates claim charging costs are equivalent to $1.21-per-gallon gasoline, the real amount is an order of magnitude more.

Including the charging equipment, subsidies from governments and utilities and other frequently excluded expenses, the true cost of charging an EV is equivalent to $17.33-per-gallon gasoline — but the EV owner pays less than 7% of that.

So if the E.V. owner pays less than 7% of that massively inflated cost to “fuel” a car, that means more than 93% of the financial burden falls on the taxpayer—as the NY Post authors also write:

This is socialism for the rich: a transfer of costs from higher net-worth individuals to middle- and lower-income taxpayers.

It’s the equivalent of levying taxes and fees on public-transportation users and those who walk or bicycle to work and using the money to reduce the price of gasoline.

At this stage, E.V.s, if forced to stand on their own, are an utter failure, and as I noted in my previous blog, bad ideas and inferior products only find security in a “free” market… rigorously controlled by big government fascists. If our market were truly free, an extremely expensive car that can spontaneously combust, only works in a limited temperature range, occasionally malfunctions and locks occupants inside before rolling backwards into bodies of water, and costs $17.33 per “gallon” to “fuel” up, would be dead on arrival—as it should be.

House Votes To Overturn Biden’s EV Mandate that Cars Produced in the US be Fully Electric by 2032.

Continue reading “”

U.N. CONFERENCE PUSHES ANTI-HUNTING ‘MEATLESS’ AGENDA TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE

Leaders of the world’s developed and undeveloped countries are gathering in Dubai for the 28th U.N. Convention of Parties (COP28) on climate action. It’s a global confab for privileged leaders to fly their private jets around the world – including Vice President Kamala Harris and U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry – to meet and talk about “climate science.”

But anti-hunting, animal rights activists are piling on the climate agenda this year with major efforts to force developed countries to cut back on burgers and steaks.

“The world’s most-developed nations will be told to curb their excessive appetite for meat as part of the first comprehensive plan to bring the global agrifood industry into line with the Paris climate agreement,” Bloomberg reported. Coincidentally, that’s the same media company owned by the billionaire gun control piggy bank and failed presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg.

U.S. officials should tell U.N. officials to pound sand. It’s a backwards and laughable proposal for many reasons. Such an effort would end up penalizing America’s millions of hunters. And that, consequently, would harm many more millions of less fortunate families in need of good, healthy meals – especially during the holiday season.

Meatless Mandate Manure

Continue reading “”

HOW HAMAS BECAME AN ENVIRONMENTALIST AND GUN CONTROL CAUSE

From Queers for Palestine to marchers carrying signs reading, “Palestine is a Reproductive Justice Issue”, the Hamas cause has been vertically integrated throughout the Left. Greta Thunberg was booed after injecting anti-Israel chants into environmental rallies. The BLM movement was a longtime foe of Israel, but Asian Studies departments recently joined in.

The leaders of March for Our Lives and the Sunrise Movement, a gun control group and an environmental protest group, signed a letter to Biden warning that young people wouldn’t vote for him unless he forced Israel to stop attacking Hamas.

How better to promote gun control than by defending mass murderers who used machine guns to kill innocent people and how better to champion the environment than by supporting terrorists who deliberately start fires in Israel. What does Hamas have in common with gun control advocates, environmentalists and abortion activists?

“I think something very bad is happening on the left,” Israel’s Labor leader Merav Michaeli complained. “People who consider themselves to be democratic, progressive, are supporting a totalitarian terror regime that oppresses women, the LGBTQ+ community… The more you go to the left, the more there’s a big mix-up. Something went very wrong on the way.”

The ‘something’ that went wrong is called ‘intersectionality’. That’s why abortion protesters, gay activists, environmentalists, gun control activists and the entire Left have to support Hamas. But intersectionality is also bait and switch. While gay activists have to support Hamas, the Islamic terrorist group doesn’t have to stop throwing them off buildings. Making sure Hamas has enough fuel to fire rockets at Israeli kindergartens may be a reproductive justice issue, but no one expects masked men armed with RPGs to shout, “Allahu Akbar” at a Planned Parenthood rally.

Continue reading “”

Why Does My ‘Efficient’ Dishwasher Take a Zillion Minutes for a Load?

For months, Donna King experimented with the various settings of her washing machine, trying to get her clothes to stop coming out covered in detergent residue. In the era of tightening water and energy standards, King thinks the machine just doesn’t use enough water, with clothes emerging nearly dry to the touch.

Counting down the hours

She regularly runs her T-shirts through the machine a second time. The hairstylist in Oak Ridge, Tenn., sometimes brings laundry loads into work to use the heavy duty setup there.
“I’m all for saving the environment but this ain’t the way to do it, if you got to do something two or three times,” the 59-year-old said. “The standard is great on paper, but when it comes to practical and real life situations, it’s a bunch of s—.”
King hacked her machine with a water pitcher—she now adds seven or more pitchers filled with water to the machine, both at the start and midway through the cycle. That extra water tricks the machine into thinking there is a bigger load, so the washer adds even more water.

Donna King hacked her high efficiency washing machine by manually adding water. PHOTO: DONNA KING

King says her clothes now come out cleaner. “There is nothing convenient about any of it,” she said.
Other consumers are also MacGyvering workarounds for their modern home appliances, as planned and current regulations make it harder and slower to wash pots, clean pants and boil pasta.
The Biden administration has proposed tightening federal water and energy use standards further for numerous home appliances, including refrigerators and ovens, in an effort to combat climate change and save consumers money. Under a proposed rule, dishwashers would be allowed to use around 3.2 gallons of water a cycle, down from 5 gallons currently. Appliance makers and environmental groups have put forward a joint proposal for less stringent efficiency increases.

Continue reading “”

A New Report Throws Cold Water on Man-Made Global Warming Pseudoscience

“To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?” may prove to be the most important scientific paper in the last 10 years.

Climate Discussion Nexus offers an introduction to why this paper is so important:

Well, this is awkward. Statistics Norway, aka Statistisk sentralbyrå or “the national statistical institute of Norway and the main producer of official statistics”, has just published a paper “To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?”

The awkward part isn’t trying to grasp the subtleties of Norwegian since it’s also available in English. It’s that the Abstract bluntly declares that “standard climate models are rejected by time series data on global temperatures” while the conclusions state “the results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations.”

But the really awkward part is that a paper from a government agency dares to address openly so many questions the alarmist establishment has spent decades declaring taboo, from the historical record on climate to the existence of massive uncertainty among scientists on it.

What the Norwegians did was conduct statistical analyses of observed and reconstructed temperature series and test whether the recent fluctuation in temperatures differs systematically from previous temperature cycles potentially due to the emission of greenhouse gases. For example, the researchers gathered all the data from various sources, including those related to the four previous glacial and inter-glacial periods, and did a statistical analysis to see how more recent Global Climate Models (GCMs) compare.

In the global climate models (GCMs) most of the warming that has taken place since 1950 is attributed to human activity. Historically, however, there have been large climatic variations. Temperature reconstructions indicate that there is a ‘warming’ trend that seems to have been going on for as long as approximately 400 years. Prior to the last 250 years or so, such a trend could only be due to natural causes.

The length of the observed time series is consequently of crucial importance for analyzing empirically the pattern of temperature fluctuations and to have any hope of distinguishing natural variations in temperatures from man-made ones. Fortunately, many observed temperature series are significantly longer than 100 years and in addition, as mentioned above, there are reconstructed temperature series that are much longer.

I was recently discussing the fact that Earth is warming from its last glaciation period. The Norwegian statisticians’ comprehensive temperature review takes the long view into account by looking at the last 420,000 years.

Continue reading “”

‘Green’ EV Battery Factory Uses So Much Energy, It Needs Its Own Coal Plant to Power It

In order to keep up with the demands for Democrat President Joe Biden’s green agenda, a coal-fired power plant is being expanded to cope with the energy needs of an electric vehicle (EV) battery factory.

The $4 billion Panasonic EV battery factory is being constructed in De Soto, Kansas. The new factory will help satisfy the Biden administration’s efforts to get everyone into an EV. It also will help extend the life of a coal-fired power plant.

The Evergy Power Plant was slated to be decommissioned as part of the push to eliminate fossil fuels. Plans were in place to transition fossil fuel-burning units at the plant to natural gas.

However, plans have now changed as the power plant will now be used to provide energy for the new battery factory. The plant will now be dedicated to burning coal to provide energy for the battery factory. It will also be expanded to cope with the extra demand.

Panasonic broke ground on the facility last year. The Japanese company was slated to receive $6.8 billion from the Democrats’ “Inflation Reduction Act.” The legislation has been pouring billions into electric vehicles and battery factories as part of its effort to transition America away from fossil fuels.

The Kansas City Star reports that the factory will require between 200 and 250 megawatts of electricity to operate. That’s roughly the amount of power needed for a small city.

In testimony to the Kansas City Corporation Commission, which is the state’s equivalent of the Wyoming Public Service Commission, a representative of Evergy, the utility serving the factory, said that the 4 million-square-foot Panasonic facility creates “near term challenges from a resource adequacy perspective,” according to the newspaper.

As a result, the utility will continue to burn coal at a power plant near Lawrence, Kansas, and it will delay plans to transition units at the plant to natural gas.

Environmentalists, meanwhile, are not happy about that. The situation reflects an ignored fact about EVs — they require enormous amounts of energy to produce. Aside from production, the vehicles themselves also require vast amounts of electricity to charge.

A 15-pound lithium-ion battery holds about the same amount of energy as a pound of oil. To make that battery requires 7,000 pounds of rock and dirt to get the minerals that go into that battery. The average EV battery weighs around 1,000 pounds.

All of that mining and factory processing produces a lot more carbon dioxide emissions than a gas-powered car. EVs have to be driven around 50,000 to 60,000 miles before there’s a net reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

So, as more factories are built in the U.S. to supply EV manufacturers, there will be higher demands on the grid for power.

Largest EV Charging Station In World Powered By Diesel-Powered Generators.

The Harris Ranch Tesla Supercharger station is an impressive beast. With 98 charging bays, the facility in Coalinga, California, is the largest charging station in the world. But to provide that kind of power takes something solar can’t provide — diesel generators.

Aerial photo of supercharger Tesla station at the Harris Ranch in California.

The Harris Ranch Tesla Supercharger station is an impressive beast. With 98 charging bays, the facility in Coalinga, California, is the largest charging station in the world.

In 2017, Tesla CEO said that all Superchargers in the automaker’s network were being converted to solar.

“Over time, almost all will disconnect from the electricity grid,” Musk posted on X, formally known as Twitter.

Superchargers charge vehicles up to the 80% sweet spot in as little as 20 minutes, but to provide that kind of power for nearly 100 bays takes something solar can’t provide — diesel generators.

Investigative journalist Edward Niedermeyer discovered that the station was powered by diesel generators hidden behind a Shell station. Reporters at SF Gate tried to find out how much of the station’s electricity was from the generators, but couldn’t get a response from Tesla.

The station isn’t connected to any dedicated solar farms, which means that absent the diesel generators, the station is powered by California’s grid.

Continue reading “”

The Great Reset is a Globalist Trojan Horse using the cover of “Climate Change” to destroy American Economic Power and transfer power to the IMF

The World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” (which Biden is implementing) is Neo Marxism packaged in a way that if you oppose it you either want to destroy the environment or you are a racist.

Supporters of the World Economic Forum and sympathizers of the Fabian Society are using the facade of “Climate Change” to subvert democracies worldwide and impose a “Great Reset”  to eradicate national frameworks and create globalist, borderless, godless, neo-Marxist, multicultural, open societies. The destruction of the centrality of the U.S. dollar in the Global Financial System and the transfer of Economic Power to the International Monetary Fund is key in the Globalist’s strategy. They are using “Climate Change” as a cover to replace democracy and capitalism with a neo-Marxist global tyranny.

The Biden regime has embraced the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset. Critical Race Theory is an integral part of the Great Reset by which education and social contracts are being modified.

On December 3, 2020 Justin Haskins wrote in the Hill “According to the Great Reset’s supporters, the plan would fundamentally transform much of society. As World Economic Forum (WEF) head Klaus Schwab wrote back in June, “the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”

“Internationally, the Great Reset has already been backed by influential leaders, activists, academics and institutions. In addition to the World Economic Forum and United Nations, the Great Reset movement counts among its the International Monetary Fund, heads of state, Greenpeace and CEOs and presidents of large corporations and financial institutions such as Microsoft and MasterCard…

Continue reading “”

Bill Gates Says ‘Brute Force’ Climate Policies Won’t Work
Speaking at a live event at The Times Center in New York, the billionaire philanthropist argued for a pragmatic, technology-driven approach to global warming.

“Are we the science people or are we the idiots?” asked Bill Gates, during a discussion about his pragmatic strategy to fighting climate

Bill Gates, the multibillionaire founder of Microsoft, argued for a pragmatic, technology-driven approach to fighting climate change on Thursday.

“If you try to do climate brute force, you will get people who say, ‘I like climate but I don’t want to bear that cost and reduce my standard of living,’” Mr. Gates said at the Climate Forward event hosted by The New York Times. “Without innovation, it’s unlikely, particularly in middle-income countries, that the brute force approach will be successful.”
Mr. Gates also said winning more bipartisan support was needed in order for policy to actually stick. “Republicans for climate change action are gold, you know,” he said. “That’s got to be a number that somehow we manage to increase over time.”

“You can’t have a climate policy that when one party is in charge goes full speed ahead and stops cold,” he added. “These are 30-year investments in steel factories, new ways of making meat.”

Mr. Gates, who in recent weeks has espoused an everything-will-be-fine approach to the climate crisis, was asked whether he could reconcile that stance with the reality of extreme weather around the globe.

“I’m the person who is doing the most on climate in terms of the innovation and how we can square multiple goals,” said Mr. Gates, a co-founder of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major donor to health- and climate-related causes. “There’s very limited money for causes to reduce inequity in the world. And no temperate country is going to become uninhabitable.”

Instead, he said, he is taking a more pragmatic approach and drawing a line at untested remedies like planting a trillion trees.
“Are we the science people or are we the idiots?” he said. “Which one do we want to be?”

BLUF
A “massive campaign . . . to de-develop the United States.”
“De-develop the United States.” Ponder that. Mr. Holdren lamented that the idea of de-development was subject to “considerable misunderstanding and resistance.” I for one am happy about the resistance. Indeed, I wish it were stiffer. But as for misunderstanding what “de-development” means, I have to take issue. We know exactly what it means. It is the same thing that Luddites and anti-capitalists have always meant: the impoverishment and immiseration of the mass of mankind just so long as the perquisites for the self-appointed nomenklatura persist un-disturbed.

We Know Exactly What ‘De-Development’ Means: ‘Climate change’ offers potent pretext for consolidation of governmental power.

“The climate crisis,” said Al Gore at the U.N. a couple of days ago, “is a fossil fuel crisis.”

“What climate crisis?” you might be asking, and you would be right to do so. Yes, it is impossible to turn anywhere in our enlightened, environmentally conscious world without being beset by lectures about one’s “carbon footprint” and horror tales about “global warming,” “rising seas” and imminent ecological catastrophe.

But deep down you know that it is all hooey. Mark Twain was right when he observed that it is not so much the things we don’t know that get us into trouble. Rather, the mischief is caused by things that we “do know that ain’t so.”

For example, we all “know” that carbon dioxide is “bad for the environment.” (In fact, it is a prerequisite for life). We “know” that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is reaching historically unprecedented and dangerous levels. (In fact, we have, these past centuries, been living through a CO2 famine). We “know” that “global warming”— or, since there has been no warming in more than two decades, that “climate change”— has caused a sudden rise in the seas. (In fact, the seas have been rising for the last 20,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age). We “know” that, when it comes to the subject of climate change, the “science is settled,” that “97 percent of scientists” agree that global warming is anthropogenic, which is Greek for “caused by greedy corporate interests and the combustion of fossil fuels.”

It’s really quite extraordinary how much we do know that ain’t so.

Continue reading “”

The Biden Admin Just Declared ‘War on Consumers’

In the Biden administration’s whole-of-government attempt to force a transition to supposedly “green” and ethical energy that’s anything but — just ask the whales off the coast of New England or forced/child laborers in EV battery supply chains in Africa — another department is jumping into the crusade.

On Tuesday morning, the U.S. Department of the Treasury released its “Principles for Net-Zero Financing & Investment” to press ahead with “best practices for private sector financial institutions that have made net-zero commitments and promote consistency and credibility in approaches to implementing them.”

These principles, the Treasury Department and Secretary Janet Yellen say, are key to “supporting the mobilization of more private sector capital to address the physical and economic impacts of climate change and to seize on the historic economic opportunity presented by the green transition.”

To that end, Yellen and her department heralded “a number of announcements from civil society including a $340 million commitment” from the likes of the Bezos Earth Fund, Bloomberg Philanthropies, Climate Arc, ClimateWorks, Hewlett Foundation, and Sequoia Climate Foundation over the next three years “to support the continued development of research, data availability, and technical resources intended to help financial institutions develop and execute robust, voluntary net-zero commitments” and “facilitate the transition planning efforts of non-financial sectors of the economy.”

According to the Treasury Department, the “climate crisis is propelling a massive economic shift and is hitting the most vulnerable countries and communities first and hardest” and there’s an “increasing demand for technologies, products, and services that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, support a clean energy future, and help adapt to a changing climate across all sectors.” Notably, however, that demand is not high enough to see the market move truly voluntarily to meet it. As such, “[i]n the United States, government support is playing a role in accelerating this transition,” the Treasury Department admitted as it pushes for more net-zero agreements and investment, as seen in the principles released on Tuesday.

“This announcement from the Department of the Treasury forcing financial institutions to adopt net-zero principles should come as no surprise to American consumers as the Biden Administration openly declares war on consumers,” reacted Will Hild, the executive director of Consumers’ Research.

“Treasury Secretary Yellen, with her announcement of these new net-zero principals at the Bloom Transition Finance Action Forum, has made it abundantly clear that the Treasury Department is working with and for ESG activists like Michael Bloomberg to make the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) goals for financial institutions into U.S. government policy, leaving consumers with nothing,” Hild added. “The Biden Administration is littered with former BlackRock employees such as Brian Deese and Eric Van Nostrand who are pushing these liberal, progressive, net-zero, and ESG policies on Americans, rather than focusing on reducing costs at the grocery store and gas pump and tamping down inflation.”

“Make no mistake, the Biden administration is running cover for the financial industry’s net zero cartel, protecting megalomaniac CEOs like Larry Fink and leaving consumers with nothing,” said Hild.

As summarized by the Treasury Department, the principles established to reinforce the woke, economically damaging priorities of the left are:

PRINCIPLE 1: A financial institution’s net-zero commitment (commitment) is a declaration of intent to work toward the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Treasury recommends that commitments be in line with limiting the increase in the global average temperature to 1.5°C. To be credible, this declaration should be accompanied or followed by the development and execution of a net-zero transition plan.

PRINCIPLE 2: Financial institutions should consider transition finance, managed phaseout, and climate solutions practices when deciding how to realize their commitments.

PRINCIPLE 3: Financial institutions should establish credible metrics and targets and endeavor, over time, for all relevant financing, investment, and advisory services to have associated metrics and targets.

PRINCIPLE 4: Financial institutions should assess client and portfolio company alignment to their (i.e., financial institutions’) targets and to limiting the increase in the global average temperature to 1.5°C.

PRINCIPLE 5: Financial institutions should align engagement practices — with clients, portfolio companies, and other stakeholders — to their commitments.

PRINCIPLE 6: Financial institutions should develop and execute an implementation strategy that integrates the goals of their commitments into relevant aspects of their businesses and operating procedures.

PRINCIPLE 7: Financial institutions should establish robust governance processes to provide oversight of the implementation of their commitments.

PRINCIPLE 8: Financial institutions should, in the context of activities associated with their net-zero transition plans, account for environmental justice and environmental impacts, where applicable.

PRINCIPLE 9: Financial institutions should be transparent about their commitments and progress towards them.

The voluntary net-zero commitments the Biden administration is seeking to foist on the private sector, however, may put companies which join them in legal jeopardy.

As Townhall has reported previously, state attorneys general from across the U.S. have put insurance and financial service companies on notice that their net-zero commitments may constitute a violation of antitrust and consumer protection laws.

One recent letter to signatories of a net-zero commitment led by Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti noted how such net-zero alliances see companies “colluding to limit consumer choices and manipulate market outcomes in support of international climate activists,” moves that “could violate [his state’s] antitrust and consumer protection laws.” As AG Skrmetti rightfully noted, “[d]ecisions about energy policy should be made by our elected representatives, not by transnational corporate alliances.”

Already, an earlier warning to insurance signatories to a net-zero pact saw several companies back out of the agreement rather than face additional scrutiny from state attorneys general for their activities that may have constituted antitrust violations.

Despite such warnings about net-zero priorities being potentially in violation of state law, the Biden administration and its climate alarmist allies in the private and nonprofit sector are plunging ahead with more agreements — an unsurprising development from the administration that has not allowed federal law or the U.S. Constitution curb its ambitions, leading to a series of high-profile losses before the Supreme Court for its attempts to force an energy transition.

Markey, Ocasio-Cortez ask Biden to create Civilian Climate Corps by executive order

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), two of Congress’ most vocal proponents for aggressive climate action, on Monday called for President Biden to establish a Civilian Climate Corps.

The CCC had been a key element in early versions of the Build Back Better Act, the sweeping environmental and infrastructure bill. It was not ultimately included in the slimmed down Inflation Reduction Act, which was nonetheless the largest climate bill in U.S. history.

Biden was a vocal backer of the Climate Corps early in his presidency, comparing it to the Civilian Conservation Corps introduced during the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The original legislation called for $10 billion to launch the new program.

In the letter, timed to the 30th anniversary of the bill that created Americorps, Ocasio-Cortez and Markey cited polling indicating the idea has more than 60 percent support. The two have also reintroduced a bill to establish a corps legislatively, although the measure will almost certainly not be given a vote in the Republican-majority House.

“A central coordinating body, overseen by the White House, will be essential to create a successful and cohesive Civilian Climate Corps,” they wrote. “Through interagency collaboration, as well as coordination with state climate corps, other state entities, and local non-profit organizations, your Administration can realize the vision of a Civilian Climate Corps that establishes a unified front in the face of climate change — one that looks like America, serves America, and puts good-paying union jobs within reach for more young adults.”

The letter is also signed by members of Democratic congressional leadership like Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).

Also on Monday, a coalition of more than 50 progressive and environmentalist groups sent a separate letter calling on Biden to establish the CCC, citing its popularity among younger voters in particular.

“While previous Executive Orders and legislation under your administration demonstrate tremendous progress toward meeting our Paris climate goals and your campaign promises, this summer has made clear that we must be as ambitious as possible in tackling the great crisis of our time,” they wrote.

“We encourage your administration to create a Civilian Climate Corps through existing authorities, with existing climate funding, that can coordinate across relevant federal agencies.”